For what it’s worth........ It’s not a carjacking if someone jumps in a car and steals it.... a carjacking is an armed robbery of a person.... (or unarmed robbery/strong arm robbery if a suspect yanks someone out of the drivers seat)......and takes their car. In this situation it’s a stolen car.... big difference....... She should be OK because her children were in danger.......... But she shouldn’t be talking to the media about the facts of her case....
Bottom line is if you don’t want to get shot in the face don’t steal someone’s car.....
Yep..... If the kids were not in the car she’d be in a heap of trouble for shooting him over a stolen car.... that’s just a property crime........
She should not be talking to the media because I’m certain the attorneys for the family of the thief will claim he didn’t know the kids were in the car when he hopped in it to steal it......
I don’t disagree with you..... The only thing that matters in this case is that the kids are OK...... mom too.........
We had a stolen car a year or two where there was a baby in a baby seat in the back. The thief dropped the baby off in the seat on the porch of a vacant house....... parents don’t leave your kids in the car unattended....
We also had a mom leave her 2 babies in the car in the summer about 7 years ago while she was getting her hair done. Her babies died in the car from the heat.......
It looks like in Texas it's kidnapping, unauthorized use of a vehicle and/or car-jacking. I'm thinking even if the kids weren't in the car, when she jumped in to protect her property and told the perp to stop and get out....and he refused to stop, it became kidnapping and she would claim she feared for safety/life and would have been justified to shoot him. Yes?...No?
Yes it’s possible if she could articulate it because of his crazy driving...... cops have shot car theives when the cops are on foot and they can articulate they were in fear of being run over..... They always end up getting sued..... but that’s the cost of doing business.....
Sec. 20.02. UNLAWFUL RESTRAINT. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child younger than 14 years of age;
(2) the actor was a relative of the child; and
(3) the actor's sole intent was to assume lawful control of the child.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is:
(1) a state jail felony if the person restrained was a child younger than 17 years of age;
(2) a felony of the third degree if:
(A) the actor recklessly exposes the victim to a substantial risk of serious bodily injury;
(B) the actor restrains an individual the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant; or
(C) the actor while in custody restrains any other person; or
(3) notwithstanding Subdivision (2)(B), a felony of the second degree if the actor restrains an individual the actor knows is a peace officer or judge while the officer or judge is lawfully discharging an official duty or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a peace officer or judge.
(d) It is no offense to detain or move another under this section when it is for the purpose of effecting a lawful arrest or detaining an individual lawfully arrested.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) the person restrained was a child who is 14 years of age or older and younger than 17 years of age;
(2) the actor does not restrain the child by force, intimidation, or deception; and
(3) the actor is not more than three years older than the child.
That’s much different than where I work..... early in my career a guy shot and killed a kid who was sitting in his Jeep Grand Cherokee working on popping the ignition to steal it..... The owner of the car served 7 years for 2nd degree murder.....
I think if he was just stealing the car with no kids inside she would be in trouble. But, since her kids were in it he was fair game. But, But, if the kids weren't in the car and she jumped in her car that was being jacked, wouldn't she be the one being kidnapped and therefore justified in shooting the idiot.
Maybe Bad Karma can give an opinion on that..... One thing is for sure....... She’s a dumb ass for leaving a 2 year old and 4 year old in an unlocked running car with a loaded pistol in an unlocked glove box..... If she was charged with child endangerment it wouldn’t surprise me....... But all is well that ends well. The kids are OK..... that’s what’s important......
BB, the kids at that age would be confined in car seats in the back seat and have no access to the glove box. Her big mistake was to stop after one shot.
Jeff.... you said in Indiana the Castle Doctrine covers attempted car theft.... but then you posted the law and it says OCCUPIED car.........
You might want to check your state law..... I’m pretty sure you can’t run out of your house and shoot someone who is in your car trying to steal it.......
Also note that the suspect was not charged with kidnapping...... but unlawful restraint... which I’m guessing is a lesser crime than kidnapping..... because his intent was to steal the car.
Final rule for NH. If the burglar makes it outside or you shoot him coming in your window, pull his body into the house. Sheriff told my mother that 50 years ago when she blasted a guy breaking in through a window. Times have changed.
Come on Jeff.... You should know the difference between carjacking and car theft...... you’re in law enforcement aren’t you ?? We should be VERY clear that deadly force cannot be used in property crimes..... Unless the law of the state CLEARLY states it can....
BB, What I disagree with the right to carry without having to take the class is that folks miss out on the type of information you are trying to convey here. It was excellent information to help prevent a legal, costly quagmire.
I 100% support right to carry, but encourage all to take the class. Protecting our loved ones includes financially as well as physically.
No one, anywhere, is going to convict a mother who kills a guy trying to drive off in a car that her children are inside of. Even in California, that's not gonna happen.
You are right Ike.... the kids were in danger..... no problems with this shooting........
Lessons to be learned...... The kids were put in danger because the mother left her 2 and 4 year old unattended in a running vehicle with the doors unlocked..... Where I work.... that’s an open invitation for someone to steal a car.... Lesson number 2..... If you are involved in a shooting........ Lawyer up after the fact... for God’s sake she shouldn’t have been giving a taped interview to the media........ anything she said could have been used against her in court later if she was charged with child endangerment or God forbid an unjustified shooting...
Frank.... I fully support everyone’s right to carry too.... And I fully believe that with that right comes the ABSOLUTE responsibility to know when you are justified in shooting someone.... That is why you are carrying..... Discussions and lessons learned should happen amongst law abiding carrying citizens in cases like this. It puts you in the right mind set of knowing EXACTLY when you are justified to use lethal force. I have had more than one discussion with people who thought they could shoot someone when legally they could not...... and was involved in an incident where a guy thought he did a good thing killing the kid that was stealing his car... and even called 911 himself to report it..... only to do 7 years in prison.
I would hope the Idyl is right. But with people out there that are like my brother. They use the excuse. "The punishment doesn't fit the crime." Those type of people always say that the mom should have shot him somewhere like the leg or arm. Or she should not have been out of the car and left her kids in the car. I am just the opposite, I say good job mom. And the SOB shouldn't have stole the car and he wouldn't have got shot. Pretty simple. Even if I lived in a state that it would have been against the law what she did. If I was on the jury I would even dream of convicting her of anything
That’s all and good Bravado talk Lou...... Do you suggest that the Police approach someone sitting in a car in the middle of the night working on popping the ignition to steal the car..... and just shoot them ????
How about a guy stealing a ham and running away....??? Shoot him in the back as he’s running away ?????
That might sound absurd..... But that’s what happened in the landmark Supreme Court Case of Garner vs. Tennessee..... that is one of the main Supreme Court rulings in the US that govern the use of lethal force.
I see you rethought your last post Lou and deleted it....
Listen..... My intent is not to be a jerk..... my goal is to help to keep you law abiding gun carrying good guys on the right side of the law....... I see all the time that guys don’t know the difference between a carjacking and a regular old theft of a car. A carjacking is a robbery.... a violent crime against a person. A car theft is a property crime..........
I hear people all the time say they were robbed when they were out of town and their house got broken into...... They did not get robbed. Robbery is a violent crime against a person......... They were a victim of home invasion...... and larceny is part of home invasion.....
If a house is occupied when a home invasion occurs.... it obviously steps up the severity of the crime..... to the point of defending yourself inside your home with lethal force.......
Every mom across America leaves her kids strapped in the car while she fuels up. Why in the Hell would you get your toddlers out of the car to pump gas? They'd be in more danger in a busy gas station where cars are driving while mom is pumping gas, than they are strapped into their car seats.
Props to mom for being brave enough to jump back in the car as this guy tried to take off in it and even more so for shooting the guy in the face. She's a hero. All you need is 1 mother on this jury and there's no way she's ever getting convicted.
Ike...... If she’s running inside to pay for her gas.... then turn the car off and take the keys with her for Christ’s sake... the kids aren’t going to overheat in 5 minutes..... A running unattended car is an invitation to steal it in a lot of areas in the lower 48..... People leave their cars running and then endanger lives in Police Pursuits.... Maybe car theft doesn’t happen up there in Alaska much..... where I work..... multiple cars are stolen every day.... everyone knows that here....
Not only that..... she left her loaded pistol in an unlocked glove box in an unlocked running car while she went inside to pay for gas. Would you leave your vehicle running unlocked with your pistol in the glovebox while you go inside a gas station to pay for gas ?? I’d say that’s a dumb ass move..... but maybe that’s just me.
These are the things that we should discuss as law abiding gun owners and responsible carriers of guns...
In this day and age if you leave your kids in a car with no AC running, even for 5 minutes, you’re likely to have someone break your window to “save” your kids and turn you in to child protective services. Big bear might not agree but I leave the car running and take my key fob so i can lock it.
You bring up some excellent points; however, I would not count on a jury nullification when you just admitted the government tried to suppress them.
Given what we know, I agree with her actions outside of going public with them. It offers something into her potential state of mind IMO.
Even when convinced of one's rights, you may end up spending a lot of money to win. One of our biggest challenges today is our criminal justice system's ability to bankrupt someone if they want you bad enough. Thanks.
Link..... that could possibly happen in the parking lot of a mall or grocery store...... But highly unlikely at a gas station where the owner of the car can be located in mere seconds.....
Leaving an unattended car running is actually illegal in Michigan...... But newer cars have auto start where you can safely leave them running without the keys in them......
Unless I missed it, there is nothing in the article that indicates that the car was left running. In fact, I believe it is illegal in most places to fuel a car while it is running.
Obviously, the keys were left in the car, but it may not have been left running.
Ummmm.... why would she leave the keys in the car if it wasn’t running...... We get stolen cars every day when people leave their cars running..Its a crime of opportunity ... some of those turn into Police Pursuits.... unless she turned the car off and someone happened to look in her car and see the keys..... I’m pretty sure it was running......
Would you do that in the inner city with a 2 year old and a 4 year old and your pistol in the car ?? Would you walk inside to pay for your gas ? Look..... I’m not on the side of the bad guy..... I’m simply trying to convey that this type of thing happens constantly in the city..... and is preventable.....
